1 of 3 30-WP.9594.2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 30 WRIT PETITION NO. 9594 OF 2017 JANABAI GANGARAM KENDRE VERSUS VISHWANATH SHYAMRAO PHAD AND OTHERS ... Mr. J. M. Murkute, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. S. S. Jadhavar, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 4. Mr. Balbhim R. Kedar, Advocate for Respondent Nos.6 and 7. ... CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE : 24rd MARCH 2026 P.C.:- 1. Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties. 2. The present petition challenges the order dated 09.06.2017 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Udgir in R.C.S. No. 492 of 2014, whereby the application filed by the Petitioner seeking permission to independently cross-examine Respondent Nos.1 to 4/Plaintiffs came to be rejected. 3. The learned Trial Court, while rejecting the said application, observed that since Respondent Nos.1 to 4/Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 have filed a common written statement, they do not have an independent right to conduct separate cross-examination through different Advocates. 4. Mr. J. M. Murkute, learned Advocate for the Petitioner Tauseef 2026:BHC-AUG:12917 2 of 3 30-WP.9594.2017 submits that, in view of Section 136 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and Order XVIII Rule 4(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, an adverse party has a right to cross-examine the witnesses. He submits that the learned Trial Court failed to consider this legal position and has recorded perverse findings. 5. Per contra, Mr. S. S. Jadhavar, learned Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4, supports the impugned order. He submits that since Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 have filed a common written statement, their defence is identical. Merely engaging different Advocates would not entitle them to conduct separate cross-examination, as it may lead to inconsistent evidence. He, therefore, submits that the learned Trial Court has rightly rejected the application. 6. Having heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties and upon perusal of the application as well as the written statement, it is not in dispute that the Defendants have filed a common written statement. However, they are represented by different Advocates. In such circumstances, if the Defendants seek to independently cross- examine the Plaintiffs and other witnesses, such a request cannot be rejected solely on the ground that a common written statement has been filed. Each Defendant, being an adverse party, has a right to cross- examine the witnesses. In absence of any specific legal prohibition, the Tauseef 3 of 3 30-WP.9594.2017 learned Trial Court ought to have permitted such cross-examination. The impugned order does not record any finding pointing out a legal bar to such a course. 7. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Trial Court has committed an error in rejecting the application. Hence, interference is warranted. 8. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The order dated 09.06.2017 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Udgir in R.C.S. No. 492 of 2014 is quashed and set aside. Consequently, the application stands allowed. 9. Learned Advocates for both sides submit that since the suit is of the year 2014, a direction may be issued to the Trial Court for expeditious disposal. 10. Considering that the suit is of the year 2014, the Trial Court is directed to decide R.C.S. No. 492 of 2014 as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of one year from the date of this order. (SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.) Tauseef